Educational Homogamy Among Married and Unmarried Couples in Europe: Does Context Matter?

Journal of Family Issues

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 28-52

  Hamplova, Dana ^a  

^a Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

cohabitation; educational homogamy; Europe; marriage

Indexed keywords

EID: 69849119080     PISSN: 0192513X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X08324576     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
2. American Bar Association. (2004). A White Paper: An analysis of the law regarding same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. Family Law Quarterly, 2, 339-425.
3. Axinn, W.G., & Thornton, A. (1992). The Relationship between cohabitation and divorce: Selectivity or causal influence? Demography, 29, 357-374.
4. Baatrup, S., & Waaldijk, K. (2005). Major legal consequences of marriage, cohabitation and registered partnerships for different-sex and same-sex partners in Denmark. In K. Waaldijk (Ed.), More or less together (pp. 67-78). Paris: Institut National d'Études Démographiques.
5. Baizan, P., Arnstein, A., & Billari, F.C. (2003). Cohabitation, marriage, and first birth: The interrelationship of family formation events in Spain. European Journal of Population, 19, 147-169.
6. Barlow, A. (2004). Regulation of cohabitation, changing family policies and social attitudes: A discussion of Britain within Europe. Law and Policy, 26, 57-86.
7. Baxter, J. (2005). To marry or not to marry. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 300-321.
8. Björnberg, U. (2001). Cohabitation and marriage in Sweden-does family form matter? International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15, 350-362.
9. Blackwell, D.L., & Lichter, D.T. (2000). Mate selection among married and cohabiting couples. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 275-301.
10. Blackwell, D.L., & Lichter, D.T. (2004). Homogamy among dating, cohabiting, and married couples. The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 719-737.
11. Blossfeld, H.-P., & Timm, A. (Eds.). (2003). Who marries whom? Educational systems as marriage markets in modern societies. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
12. Bradley, D. (2001). Regulation of unmarried cohabitation in West-European jurisdictions- determinants of legal policy. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15, 22-50.
13. Brines, J., & Joyner, K. (1999). The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. American Sociological Review, 64, 333-355.
14. Carmichael, G.A. (1995). Consensual partnering in the more developed countries. Journal of the Australian Population Association, 12, 51-86.
15. Chaloupkova, J. (2006). Dohromady, nebo každý zvlášt'? Hospodarenís příjmy manželských a nesezdaných páru Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 42, 971-986.
16. Coppola, L. (2004). Education and union formation as simultaneous processes in Italy and Spain. European Journal of Population, 20, 219-225.
17. De Schutter, O., & Waaldijk, K. (2005). Major legal consequences of marriage, cohabitation and registered partnership for different-sex and same-sex partners in Belgium. In K. Waaldijk (Ed.), More or less together (pp. 49-66). Paris: Institut National d'Études Démographiques.
18. Duvander, A.-Z. (1999). The transition from cohabitation to marriage. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 698-718.
19. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
20. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21. Ferrera, M. (1996). The ‘Southern Model’ of welfare in Social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6, 17-37.
22. Gauthier, A.H. (2002). Family policies in industrialized countries: Is there convergence? Population, 57, 447-474.
23. Goodman, L.A. (1972). Some multiplicative models for the analysis of cross-classified data. In L. M. Le Cam, J. Neyman, & E. L. Scott (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability (pp. 649-696). Berkeley: University of California Press.
24. Hamplova, D. (2002). Marriage and cohabitation: Qualitative differences in partnership arrangements. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 38, 771-788.
25. Hamplova, D. (2003). Marriage and educational attainment: A dynamic approach to first union formation. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 39, 607-624.
26. Heimdal, K.R., & Houseknecht, S.K. (2003). Cohabiting and married couples’ income organization: Approaches in Sweden and the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 525-538.
27. Heuveline, P., & Timberlake, J.M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1214-1230.
28. Hou, F., & Myles, J. (2007). The changing role of education in the marriage market: Assortative marriage in Canada and the United States since the 1970s (Analytic Series Paper No. 299). Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada.
29. Jepsen, L.K., & Jepsen, C.A. (2002). An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Demography, 39, 435-453.
30. Johnson, R.A. (1980). Religious assortative marriage in the United States. New York: Academic Press.
31. Kalmijn, M. (1991). Status homogamy in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 496-523.
32. Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395-421.
33. Kiernan, K. (2002). Cohabitation in Western Europe: Trends, issues, and implications. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Just living together (pp. 3-31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34. Kiernan, K. (2004). Unmarried cohabitation and parenthood in Britain and Europe. Law and Policy, 26, 33-55.
35. Kravdal, O. (1999). Does marriage require a stronger economic underpinning than informal cohabitation? Population Studies, 53, 63-80.
36. Kuijsten, A.C. (1996). Changing family patterns in Europe: A case of divergence? European Journal of Population, 12, 115-143.
37. Lund-Andersen, I. (1990). Moving towards an individual principle in Danish law. International Journal of Law and the Family, 4, 328-342.
38. Mare, R.D. (1991). Five decades of educational assortative mating. American Sociological Review, 56, 15-32.
39. Mare, R.D. (2000). Assortative mating, intergenerational mobility, and educational inequality (Working paper No. CCPR-004-00). Los Angeles: University of California-Los Angeles, California Center for Population Research.
40. Nazio, T., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2003). The diffusion of cohabitation among young women in West Germany, East Germany and Italy. European Journal of Population, 19, 47-82.
41. Noack, T. (2001). Cohabitation in Norway: An accepted and gradually more regulated way of living. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15, 102-117.
42. Powers, D.A., & Xie, Y. (2000). Statistical methods for categorical data analysis. San Diego: Academic Press.
43. Qian, Z. (1998). Changes in assortative mating: The impact of age and education, 1970-1990. Demography, 35, 279-292.
44. Qian, Z., & Preston, S.H. (1993). Changes in American marriage, 1971-1987: Availability and forces of attraction by age and education. American Sociological Review, 58, 482-495.
45. Raftery, A. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111-163.
46. Schoen, R., & Weinick, R.M. (1993). Partner choice in marriage and cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 408-414.
47. Schoenmaeckers, R.C., & Lodewijckx, E. (1999). Demographic behaviour in Europe: Some results from FFS country reports and suggestions for further research. European Journal of Population, 15, 207-240.
48. Schwartz, C.R. (2005). Pathways to educational homogamy in marital and cohabiting Unions (Working paper No. CCPR-01-05). Los Angeles: University of California-Los Angeles, California Center for Population Research.
49. Schwartz, C.R., & Mare, R.D. (2005). Trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940 to 2003. Demography, 42, 621-646.
50. Smits, J. (2003). Social closure among the higher educated: trends in educational homogamy in 55 countries. Social Science Research, 32, 251-277.
51. Smits, J., Ultee, W., & Lammers, J. (1998). Educational homogamy in 65 countries: An explanation of differences in openness using country-level explanatory variables. American Sociological Review, 63, 264-285.
52. Smits, J., Ultee, W., & Lammers, J. (1999). Occupational homogamy in eight countries of the European Union, 1975-89. Acta Sociologica, 42, 55-68.
53. Smits, J., Ultee, W., & Lammers, J. (2000). More or less educational homogamy? A test of different versions of modernization theory using cross-temporal evidence for 60 countries. American Sociological Review, 65, 781-788.
54. Surkyn, J., & Lesthaeghe, R. (2004). Values orientation and the second demographic transition (SDT) in northern, western and southern Europe: An update [electronic version]. Demographic Research, S3, 45-86. Retrieved October 3, 2006, from http://www.demographic-research.org/
55. Tobio, C. (2001). Marriage, cohabitation and the residential independence of young people in Spain. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15, 68-87.
56. Ultee, W., & Luijkx, R. (1990). Educational heterogamy and father-to-son occupational mobility in 23 industrial nations: General societal openness or compensatory strategies of reproduction. European Sociological Review, 6, 125-149.
57. Waaldijk, K. (2005). Major legal consequences of marriage, cohabitation and registered partnership for different-sex and same-sex partners in the Netherlands. In K. Waaldijk (Ed.), More or less together (pp. 137-154). Paris: Institut National d'Études Démographiques.
58. Willets, M.C. (2006). Union quality comparisons between long-term heterosexual cohabitation and legal marriage. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 110-127.
59. Ytterberg, H., & Waaldijk, K. (2005). Major legal consequences of marriage, cohabitation and registered partnership for different-sex and same sex-partners in Sweden. In K. Waaldijk (Ed.), More or less together (pp. 169-186). Paris: Institut National d'Études Démographiques.